Command: Modern Air / Naval Operations WOTY

Command: Modern Air / Naval Operations WOTY

Not enough ratings
US Naval Air Power Debate: F-35, 2016
   
Award
Favorite
Favorited
Unfavorite
Tags: Scenario
File Size
Posted
154.767 KB
14 Jan, 2016 @ 10:30pm
1 Change Note ( view )

Subscribe to download
US Naval Air Power Debate: F-35, 2016

Description
The US effort to replace cold-war era fighters with a new "low end" lightweight fighter has resulted in the F-35A, B, and C for the US Air Force, Marines, and Navy, respectively. It has also resulted in the largest and most expensive military procurement project in history.
Over-budget, past-schedule, and under-performing: the F-35 project has become a lightning rod for debate on the future of western air power.
Under the current plan it is likely that the US Navy will be forced to operate fewer air wings spread over fewer aircraft carriers, using a mix of legacy Super Hornets and F-35Cs. Many critics claim this is an unacceptable loss of capability.
One argument to cut costs while maintaining capability has been to eliminate the "supercarrier" from the US Navy and instead rely upon smaller, non-catapult carriers (like the upcoming Queen Elizabeth class from the UK) and utilize the STOVL (short take off vertical landing) F-35B exclusively. The smaller carriers are cheaper to procure and operate, so more than one would replace a single current carrier. This smaller individual "footprint" would provide greater flexibility by being scalable to the level of force required to accomplish the mission.
On the other hand, others have argued that the greater cost of the F-35C relative to the current generation of aircraft (F-18E/F/G Super Hornets) means fewer aircraft and therefore less capability. They argue that the Navy should forgo the F-35C entirely and continue to purchase Super Hornets until a new design can be devoloped without the burdens of commonality with the Air Force and Marine versions.
This scenario is part of a three-part series that attempts to test these three options (baseline F-35C/Super Hornet mix, F-35B only, and Super Hornet only) against a real-world crisis situation. The player is invited to try all three senarios and evaluate for themselves which option is superior.
This version presents the argument for the F-35B and the "mini-carrier".
The crisis involves a military coup in the fictitious nation of OpForia. The US embassy is in danger of being overrun and an evacuation has been ordered. US Marine special forces, supported by air power from a nearby carrier task force, are tasked with extracting the embassy personel.
Editor's note: I have attempted to make a fair balance of forces between the three scenarios. The baseline scenario has a mix of Super Hornets and F-35Cs that are purposely reduced in numbers to emulate a reduced total number of air wings and carriers. For the F-35B scenario I chose to replace the single Ford-class carrier with three Wasp-class "mini-carriers". Each Wasp carries a squadron (12) of F-35Bs. Since the F-35B is (very) approximately twice as expensive as a Super Hornet, I gave the Ford carrier five squadrons (60) of Super Hornets along with supporting aircraft (Growlers and Hawkeyes). This is just for the sake of creating an equal comparison and is not meant to represent an actual carrier deployment.
24 Comments
AN/PVQ-31A 4 Jun, 2019 @ 9:42pm 
A couple of these options are sort of strawmen, as the people proposing to cut costs by lowering the number of supercarriers are usually not pro-F35 either, but generally anti and trying to make what they view as a bad situation better, since they do acknowledge the leap from harrier to supercruising stealth jet.

This is a more representative debate for Britain in my opinion, which really did debate using CTOL carriers, STOVL (which they went with) as well as possibly using Super Hornets, navalized Eurofighters, or F-35Cs or F-35Bs on the various ship designs. This included Super Hornets on ramp carriers.
Kazansky 26 Jan, 2018 @ 5:07pm 
Hi Baloogan, can you make a verion of this where the enemy aircraft are future Russian and Future Chinese aircraft, like PAK-FA and J-20/J-31 and add the Navalized F-22 to the US side just to see if the F-35 is still effective or if that Navalized F-22 was really a good idea.
Fredy 19 May, 2016 @ 10:42pm 
Archangel is right about you overplaying the cost of the F-35. The Super Hornet is actually quite expensive. Once factoring in the lifetime extention (Super Hornet is built for only 20 years), the F-35C become about the same when comparing FRP.

Send your F-35 questions to r/F35lightning if you want information regarding the F-35.
GiJoe41 30 Apr, 2016 @ 5:54pm 
It seems impossible to save the Ospreys in the beggining, they usually end up blundering first into the enemy SAG and then into a BUK, however what kills them most of the time ends up being the waves of fighters. I usually start out by sending the F-35Bs with SDB-IIs to kill the ships, 3 flights, each targeting one ship with it's bombs, then sending out tomohawks as sacrificial lambs to waste their missiles. The F-35s usually only suceed in killing one or two ships, but then i'm stuck up shit creek without a paddle as the BUK and the waves of J-10s and SU-XXs kill the last of the Ospreys, even with a hefty escort.
TitanLegion 15 Mar, 2016 @ 12:51pm 
Not to mention were not integrating storm shadow(250km) on our very limited range f35b. We need range!
TitanLegion 15 Mar, 2016 @ 12:49pm 
There is another option currently being debated in congress which is f35c/s.hornet/long range drone airwing. See Centre for New American security report by Jerry Hendrix. Aimed at countering Chinese ASBM. Hopefully all western modern navies will adopt these new airwings & keep the airframe air miles of our stealth planes for other purposes than being used up in low threat regions. I certainly hope the UK MOD adopts this for QE2. Cheers.
GasyKaManja exPS4Legend 10 Mar, 2016 @ 10:52am 
nice
Ace 9 Mar, 2016 @ 6:25pm 
Boa
Mishanya3838 8 Mar, 2016 @ 10:02pm 
Good)))
TAnC 8 Mar, 2016 @ 2:56pm 
good